Oakland is littered with cars along roads in every neighborhood you go on, and the police barely enforce anything resembling traffic code (due partially to complicated historical reasons). In some neighborhoods, I've seen duplexes with more land area in cars than living space (so is it a wonder that poorer people here live in their cars when it's so easy to own and park a car?)
A bike lane or two makes it cheaper for most folks (yes including the folks living in the pop-up Oakland housing shelters, they own a lot of bikes) to safely move around, and reduces traffic from our generally saturated roads. Given the limited paving budget here (and how tectonically active the hills are), it's a wonder that bike infra has taken so long.
Moreover, the heavy private vehicular traffic in the area makes it very difficult for buses to navigate their routes in a timely manner, and taking parking off the road for bike lanes and BRT is a much cheaper way of enabling transit in the area that laying down rail.
While that certainly has the desired effect of reducing car traffic to the area, it also increases the difficulty and expense of travel to the area. We’re seeing this in Oakland now, where they’re putting in bike lanes and taking away parking, while simultaneously doing nothing about the limited public transportation system.
If you want to reduce vehicle traffic without seriously impacting the shops and restaurants in the area, you have to use both knobs available to increase people’s use of public transportation: make it harder and more expensive to drive a car, while also making it easier (and, preferably, cheaper as well) to take transit. One without the other is a disaster.